Court Ruling on Compensation for Delays of "3 Hours or More" by Airlines (page 2 of 2)

It does clearly state "flight canceled and brought forward by more than 3 hours on the same day" in the request..

But did your lawyer write—and confirm verbally during the hearing before the judge—the terms of Article 5, paragraph 1, subsection c) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (quoting):

Article 5 Cancellations 1. In the event of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned: [..] c) shall be entitled to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7, unless they are informed of the cancellation of the flight: [..] iii) less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure if they are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled arrival time. (end of quote)

It does seem like everything is there, because if they didn’t, the judge simply couldn’t rule in your favor. In civil matters, a judge can only base their decision on the "arguments" put forward by both parties.

A guess: your opponent likely invoked the Sturgeon ruling (compensation for passengers who arrive at their final destination with a delay of "3 hours or more"). They may have done so in writing only, requesting that the case be handled without a hearing.

If your lawyer didn’t cite Article 5, paragraph 1, subsection c), the judgment dismissing your claim makes perfect sense.

Best regards,

He even mentioned "corandon" (not sure about the spelling). Unfortunately, the first judge didn’t agree. Luckily, the appeals judge did.

. When there’s an appeal ruling, the same things are requested as in the first hearing—no changes—so yes, everything was done by the book.

He even mentioned Corendon (not sure about the spelling). Unfortunately, the first judge didn’t agree. Luckily, the appeals judge did. . When there’s an appeal ruling, the same things are requested as in the first hearing—no changes—so yes, everything was done by the book.

Hello,

That the same things are requested on appeal is one thing, but it doesn’t mean they’re argued with the same *"means"* (laws, case law, regulations, contract law). Otherwise, in such a straightforward case, the ruling would’ve been the same as the first judgment! Again, in civil matters, a judge CANNOT have a personal opinion. They can only decide based on the *"means"* presented by both parties.

If your lawyer cited the Corendon ruling (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0558) instead of referencing Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation 261/2004 of the European Parliament and Council, they simply handed your opponent the win!!!

Here’s the operative part of the Corendon ruling, as you can read in the link above (quoting):

"On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules: Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that:

in the event of a rescheduled flight where the departure and arrival times are changed in advance by the airline and accompanied by a new booking confirmation for the affected passengers, the length of the delay upon arrival must be calculated based on the originally scheduled arrival time." (end of quote).

The Corendon ruling states that the delay must be assessed against the originally scheduled arrival time.

The Sturgeon ruling (likely cited by your opponent in the first judgment) states that passengers must be compensated if they reach their final destination with *"a delay of 3 hours or more."*

However, you didn’t experience any delay upon arrival at your final destination since you were rebooked on another flight 3 hours earlier!

On these grounds, the judge had no choice but to side with your opponent—since you arrived at your final destination with no delay whatsoever!!! Furthermore, it’s important to note that this ruling applies to delayed flights, not canceled ones, whereas your first flight segment was *canceled*, not delayed! It’s understandable that your opponent cited the Sturgeon ruling to argue you didn’t suffer a *"3-hour or more delay."* But for your lawyer to cite the Corendon ruling, which only strengthens your opponent’s position, is a whole different story!

Given your description, we can assume your flight was canceled last-minute—less than 7 days before departure—and you were rebooked 3 hours earlier. The outcome would’ve been entirely different if your lawyer had cited (which they likely did on appeal) Article 5(1)(c)(iii), emphasizing to the judge that compensation was being sought for *cancellation*, not delay. (Quoting):

"Article 5 Cancellations 1. In the event of a flight cancellation, the affected passengers: [...] c) are entitled to compensation from the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7, unless they are informed of the cancellation: [...]

Attached to the file. There was no error, just a poor decision by the initial judge. Even the tourism mediator agreed with us.

Hello,

There’s a major difference between the role of a mediator and that of a judge. A mediator’s role isn’t to interpret the law but to try to reach an agreement to avoid going to court.

As a result, a mediator gives their opinion, which they can’t enforce. On the other hand, a judge can’t give their opinion because they CANNOT have one. They can only make a decision based on the "arguments" (laws, case law, regulations, contractual rights) raised by both parties. Therefore, they CANNOT consider the mediator’s opinion because, precisely, it’s just an opinion.

What’s more, the mediator’s opinion confirms that your lawyer made a mistake. Indeed, according to the mediator’s assessment, your flight wasn’t classified as canceled (even though it clearly was) but only as rescheduled earlier. The mediator even cites the Court of Justice of the European Union’s ruling on flights rescheduled by more than one hour. However, it was clearly a canceled flight with rebooking on another flight—not a rescheduled one—since the rebooking flight had a different flight number. If, as you say, your lawyer cited the Corendon ruling (which determines the relevant schedule for a delayed flight) while it seems your opponent cited the Sturgeon ruling (compensation only for "3 hours or more" delays), the judge could only rule in favor of your opponent.

These exchanges are becoming completely pointless since you haven’t provided the full judgment (only 1 page), the ruling, the submissions filed in court, or those filed with the Court.

Therefore, I’m ending this exchange, which is turning into a useless debate.

Best regards

My original flight wasn’t canceled... It was delayed so much that they moved some passengers to the previous flight, which wasn’t full.

Hi ElviajeroPar,

I just saw that new rules for air travel disputes are coming into effect today, and apparently, for consumers, it’s going to be longer, more complicated, and more expensive.

Here’s the article where I read this info: https://www.franceinfo.fr/economie/transports/litiges-aeriens-de-nouvelles-regles-entrent-en-vigueur-pour-se-faire-rembourser-en-cas-de-vols-retardes-ou-annules_7789154.html

Hello, This decree dates back to last August. My website https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com has long since been updated. While the decree only came into force six months later, it was already necessary to account for the airline's response time to a claim sent by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt (A.R.), as well as the processing time for the conciliation procedure before taking the matter to court. Note—given the many questions visitors to my site ask on this point—many still haven’t understood that a registered letter with A.R. is the *only* valid method of communication for the initial claim.

The decree has a clear purpose: to paralyze agencies that charge "I’ll take 30%" (or more!!!). Since court action must now *mandatorily* be initiated by summons—meaning through a *commissaire de justice* (the new name for bailiffs)—you’ll need to spend around 100 to 150 € to file a case. This will obviously create a serious cash-flow problem for these agencies.

The obvious solution would have been to enforce Article 16 of Regulation 261/2004 of the European Parliament and Council: imposing dissuasive fines on airlines that routinely violate the regulation. But during discussions to update the same 2004 regulation (particularly the compensation amounts, which have never been adjusted), the Council (heads of state and government of the 27 EU member states) and the European Parliament have failed to reach an agreement for years. The Council is always very receptive to airlines’ arguments, while the Parliament remains strongly focused on consumer rights.

For consumers, the key changes are as follows: 1. Before taking a case to court, instead of contacting the *conciliateur de justice*, you must now contact the *médiateur du tourisme et du voyage* (MTV). 2. Instead of filing a simple *requête* (petition) after an unsuccessful mediation, you must now do so by summons, meaning you’ll need to hire a *commissaire de justice*. 3. In practice, this mainly affects agencies—mass procedures are no longer possible.

Let’s look at the first two points: Contacting the *médiateur du tourisme et du voyage* (MTV) instead of the conciliator doesn’t change much. What’s more, the MTV can only handle cases involving member companies. Many foreign airlines aren’t members, so you’ll need to prove that the MTV rejected your case.

The second point (summons) is major: Airlines will now resist passenger claims even more, betting that even fewer passengers will take legal action than before.

However, for passengers determined to enforce their rights, the consequences are limited to:

Paying the *commissaire de justice* (around 100 to 150 €). This amount will be part of the sum claimed in court and will be covered by the losing party under Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.

More than ever, *not deviating in the slightest* from the rules outlined on my website;

Pressing the airline even harder than before to provide the *two proofs* (mere allegations aren’t enough) that allow airlines to avoid paying due compensation: proof of the "extraordinary circumstances" they invoke and proof that they took all "reasonable measures" to mitigate them. https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2021/03/01/force-majeure-circonstances-exceptionnelles-circonstances-extraordinaires-quest-ce-que-cest-definition-refus-dindemnisation/

For canceled flights or missed connections, to completely invalidate any excuse of "extraordinary circumstances," carefully follow the instructions here: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2023/09/29/indemnisation-meme-si-circonstance-extraordinaire-droit-reacheminement-dans-les-meilleurs-delais/ and a concrete example of the procedure in this case: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2024/01/12/reacheminement-catastrophique-droit-indemnisation-meme-circonstances-extraordinaires-2/

It’s worth noting that this decree does *not* apply to the "European Small Claims Procedure": https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2021/03/02/procedure-europeenne-de-reglement-des-petits-litiges/

Finally, it’s important to note:

This new decree has been *strongly* criticized by legal professionals (both judges and lawyers).

It can reasonably be argued that this decree violates EU law, which has led to an ongoing legal challenge for its annulment. However, this process is likely to take a long time.

Best regards

Hello,

This decree is also strongly criticized by consumer associations. UFC-Que Choisir filed a case with the Council of State on October 6th to demand its annulment.